Mumbai Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Processplants Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT371Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal question involved is about the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the assessee. The assessee was manufacturing hoist, winches, cranes etc. It was opting for exemption under Notification 175/86. The charge against the appellant was that they had violated the provisions of the Acts and Rules 26 times as mentioned in the annexure to the show cause notice. The representative of the assessee pleads before us that the assessee being a small time manufacturer, who have paid their duty should be shown mercy in this case and does not dispute the violation. The show cause notice itemises 26 violations alleging misclassification of goods with an intent to wrongfully avail of the exemption contained in Notification 175/86. The clearance was spread over from April, 1989 to March, 1990. It is not possible to accept the contention that such wrong clearance on so many occasions spread out over a year was due to negligence of the appellant. One can understand mistakes can take pl...
Vishwaprakash S/O Laxman Sirsath Aged: 45 Years, Occu.: Service, R/O 6 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR664; (2002)4BOMLR176; 2003(2)MhLj176
1. We have heard the learned counsel for thePetitioners as well as in the connected group ofpetitions, which have raised a common challenge to theResolution of the Government of Maharashtra, issued on18th October, 2001 and more particularly Clause 2 (E)of the said resolution. The said clause reads asunder:'--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...
Wyeth Laboratories Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR70; 2002(5)BomCR761; 2002(143)ELT47(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioners are seeking to set aside the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 21st August, 1987 (Exh. 'F') and calling upon the respondents to refund forthwith the amount alleged to be illegally collected and recovered from the petitioners by way of alleged countervailing duty.THE FACTS2. The facts, in brief, are as under :M/s. Wyeth Laboratories Limited is the company, having its factory at Ghatkopar, Mumbai manufacturing pharmaceutical products (Patent and Proprietary Medicines) falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For the manufacture of said patent and proprietary medicines, the petitioners were required to import, from time to time, different kinds of bulk drugs. In the present case, the petitioners had imported from Netherlands various quantities of Norgesterel U.S.P. ('the said goods', for short) during March, 1986 for manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines in India.3. Upon arrival of the said goods in ...
Kishor Waman Darne and ors. Vs. Tarabai Waman Gharat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR342; 2002(4)MhLj22
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioners are taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Member of M. R. T. in TEN. A. 29 of 1988 dated 7-3-1989, by which the learned Member of M.R.T. dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order passed by Assistant Collector, Panvel Division, Panvel in Tenancy Appeal No. 12/1987. The learned Assistant Collector had dismissed the said appeal filed. 2. The land in dispute is Survey No. 21, Hissa No. nil, admeasuring 3 acres, 12 gunthas and 8 Ares, situated within the revenue limits of village Ranwad, Tal. Uran, District Raigad. The litigation has chequered history since the case had travelled through the bouts in number of Courts in litigation. The present respondents had filed an application on 17-5-1974 under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, Act for convenience) seeking a declaration that they are tenants of the suit lands...
Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR207; 2002LC798(Bombay); 2003(151)ELT23(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Both petitions filed by M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited were heard together and with the conclusion of the submissions, Writ Petition No. 3679 of 1989 was dismissed and Writ Petition No. 199 of 1993 was allowed for the reasons to be recorded later. Accordingly, we record our reasons based on facts enumerated hereinafter.2. Both these petitions were heard together since the cause of action in both these petitions originate from the amount already refunded by the Respondents to the Petitioners. In Writ Petition No. 3679 of 1989, the Petitioners challenge the action of the Respondents in claiming excise duty by redetermining the assessable value by including the amount of refund already granted, as price realisation under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('Excise Act' for short). In Writ Petition No. 199 of 1993, the Petitioners challenge the show cause notice dated 2-9-1992 issued under Section 11A/11D of the Excise Act, as amended in 1991 to reco...
Thanco Bank Karmachari Sangh Vs. Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd. and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR350]; (2002)IILLJ328Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner is a Trade Union, registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and is also registered as the Representative Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, for the Co-operative Banking Industry in the local area of Thane Municipal limits. The Respondent No. 1 is the concern or the undertaking against which the Petitioner has filed the present Complaint of unfair labour practice under Item No. 5 of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU & PULP Act) alleging that the said employer bank has 'refused to bargain collectively, in good faith, with the recognised union' and it did not negotiate and discuss with the Petitioner Union and has signed a settlement with the Respondent No. 2 which is a Union neither registered as a representative Union in the local area as contemplated by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short B.I.R. Act) nor as a Recogni...
V.U. Warrier Vs. Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ918Bom
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The Petitioner was holding the post of Additional Director (F&A;) in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) prior to his retirement. He retired from service on : superannuation with effect from February 28, 1990. While dealing with the aspect of payment of gratuity which was found payable to the Petitioner under 1969 Regulations, the amount of Rs. 53,632/- was deducted towards unauthorised occupancy of official accommodation from July 1, 1990 to May 16, 1991 at the rate of Rs. 5100/- being 75% of basic pay of Rs. 6800/- per month. This action is impugned in the present Writ Petition.2. Few facts are not in dispute. The petitioner retired, in service of ONGC as Additional Director (F&A;). He retired on February 28, 1990. Under the then existing Rules, petitioner was entitled to retain the official accommodation upto the period of four months from the date of retirement and accordingly he was in authorized occupation of the official accommodation upto June 30, 1990. The ...
Rukhsana SaifuddIn Kachwala Abdeali Shaikh Tayebally Zaidy and ors. Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR780; 2002(3)BomCR501; II(2002)DMC712
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiffs/decree holder, praying for appointment of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, who can take charge of the shop of the defendant situated on the ground floor of Mubarak Manzil, Station Road, Bhayander, more particularly described in the schedule annexed and marked Exhibit 'A' to the Chamber Summons, with all the movables lying therein with all powers under Order XL, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to sell the said shop with all the movables lying therein by public auction and to apply the net sale proceeds of the said property towards satisfaction of the decretal amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest thereon at 15% per annum from 1st February, 2000 till payment and costs of execution and of an incidental to all proceedings herein.2. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :The plaintiff No. 1 Rukhsana Saifuddin Kachwala is the wife of defendant Saifuddin Fakhruddin Kachwala. Both of ...
Pradip Khimaji Chawda Since Deceased by His L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Mahatma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR148
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By these cross petitions, the Award of the Labour Court is challenged whereby 40 months, wages were directed to be paid to the workman, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5717 of 1995 and respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 6537 of 1995. These are the cross petitions by the workman and the employer, who is the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 5717 of 1995 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6537 of 1995.2. The workman was employed as a Sweeper with the respondent-employer w.e.f. 1-7-1978. A charge-sheet was issued on 24-9-1987 for misconduct of misbehaving on the premises of the respondent under intoxication and for talking arrogantly with the night supervisor. Not being satisfied with the explanation given by the workman, the respondent-employer (hereinafter referred to as 'the hospital') held an enquiry on 1-2-1988. The workman was issued an order of termination stating that his services were no more required by the hospital with effect from th...
PerIn Ardeshir Dalal Vs. Roshan Erach Minbattiwala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR187
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. These two Notices of Motions which are taken out by the plaintiff and now transposed defendant No. 5, who had initially filed the suit as a next friend of the plaintiff respectively, can be disposed of by this common order.2. This is a case where two former employees of the deceased Hoshang Dalal, who was the brother of the present plaintiff Perin A. Dalal, are arraigned against each other for the noble(?) interest of protecting the estate of the plaintiff who is at the moment, because of her age and physical and psychological condition, is beyond understanding what the whole matter is about. But a few facts to understand the controversy which can be briefly narrated are as follows:The plaintiff Perin Dalal is the sister of one Hoshang Dalal (deceased). She is the sole heir of the deceased in accordance with the laws of succession governing parsi males dying intestate. Defendant No. 1 Roshan Minbattiwala was the secretary of the said deceased Hoshang Dalal for ab...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »